Picture of the day.

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-154-1968-16,_Russland,_Schützenpanzer_im_Gelände.jpg

the Internet
 
A member of the RAF checks out a field modified twin gun installation of a B17. Modifications like this were totally unsuccessful. This B17 was lost on Jan 30 1944. 6 POW, 4 KIA. S/N of this B17 was 42-29761
Strange comments that the modifications "were totally unsuccessful" because the A/C was lost in action. Does this also mean the later chin turret was also "Totally unsuccessful" as many a/c equipped with it were also lost in action? I did find the following comments on the page that Snautzer01 Snautzer01 linked as interesting

Fitted with twin .50 nose gun configuration, which prevented the bombardier from using a bomb sight, resulting in this aircraft being used as a 'wing' aircraft to support the formation leader.
 
Strange comments that the modifications "were totally unsuccessful" because the A/C was lost in action. Does this also mean the later chin turret was also "Totally unsuccessful" as many a/c equipped with it were also lost in action? I did find the following comments on the page that Snautzer01 Snautzer01 linked as interesting

Fitted with twin .50 nose gun configuration, which prevented the bombardier from using a bomb sight, resulting in this aircraft being used as a 'wing' aircraft to support the formation leader.
You'll notice that setup has a very restricted range of traverse, in any direction, and I see no gun sight .
The later chin turret would have to be a improvement.
 
You'll notice that setup has a very restricted range of traverse, in any direction, and I see no gun sight .
The later chin turret would have to be a improvement.
No argument that the later chin turret would be a vast improvement! I was just referencing the statement of "were totally unsuccessful" and referencing that the A/C was lost as proof of its total unsuccessfulness. The A/C could have been hit by flak, another A/C's bomb load, simple mechanical failure to name just a few possible causes.

I in no way meant to imply this could have been a viable modification. Just reading the caption that stated that the bomb site could not be used is enough for me to think it would not be a large scale modification. Even if it were deemed to be effective against frontal fighter attacks.
 
Buffalo's in Canada, who knew! The RCAF's introduction to the Buffalo took place in June 1940 when 10 (BR) Squadron, based at Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, took possession of a handful of Buffalos that had been ordered by Belgium

View attachment 631728

source Canadians and the Brewster Buffalo
I believe that is becauuse of US neutrality laws that were in affect at the time. The planes were literally towed across the border into Canada where they could be more easily transferred to the govt that ordered them.
 
As an eBay Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Pilots of Torpedo Squadron 13 (VT-13) in their ready room aboard USS Franklin (CV-13), 24 October 1944, just before the Battle of the Sibuyan Sea. They are watching as the position of the Japanese fleet is posted. VT-13's Commanding Officer, Lieutenant Commander Larry French, is second from the left, with a navigation board beside his chair. Note life vests, with die marker pouches, worn by several of these men. Other life vests, and .38 caliber revolvers, are hanging on the bulkhead.

021320.jpg
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back